Wholey v. Roebuck’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
16 district · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Haas v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2007), Banks v. International Rental & Leasing Corp. (2011)
16 district · 36 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on Bush v. Lucas · Patton v. United States · Murphy v. American Home Products Corp. · 27 Cal. 3d 167 - Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. · Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n cases of discharge motivated by employment discrimination prohibited by Title VII and Art. 49B the statutes create both the right, by way of an exception to the terminable at-will doctrine, and remedies for enforcing that exception. Thus, the generally accepted reason for recognizing the tort, that of vindicating an otherwise civilly unremedied public policy violation, does not apply. Further, allowing full tort damages to be claimed in the name of vindicating the statutory public policy goals upsets the balance between right and remedy struck by the Legislature in establishing the very policy relied upon.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The first limiting factor with respect to adopting a “new” public policy mandate for a wrongful discharge claim is derived from the generally accepted purpose behind recognizing the tort in the first place: to provide a remedy for an otherwise unremedied violation of policy.... A second limiting factor in defining a public policy mandate as a cause of action in tort is the notion that the policies should be reasonably discernible from prescribed constitutional or statutory mandates.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“While this Court has not confined itself strictly to prior judicial opinions, legislative enactments, or administrative regulations in determining the public policy of Maryland, we have, nevertheless, recognized that the establishment of “an otherwise undeclared public policy as a basis for a judicial decision involves the application of a very nebulous concept to the facts of a given case, and that declaration of public policy is normally the function of. the legislative branch.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.